Evangeline Ladonga vs.

People of the Philippines

GR no. 141066, February 17, 2005

Facts:

In 1989, spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga,

petitioner, became the regular customer of Alfredo Oculam in his
pawnshop. Sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained
a loan from him, guaranteed by check of United Coconut Planters
Bank, issued by Adronico. On last week of April 1990 and during
the first week of May 1990 the spouses obtained additional loan
guaranteed by UCPD. And between May and June 1990, the
spouses obtained the third loan guaranteed by UCPD. The three
checks bounced upon presentment for the reason that the
account was closed. When the spouses failed to redeem the
check, despite repeated demands, Oculam filed a criminal
complaint against them.

While admitting that the checks issued by Adronico

bounced because there was no sufficient deposit or the account
was closed, the spouses claim that the checks were issued only to
guarantee the obligation, with an agreement that Oculam should
not encash the checks when they mature, and, that petitioner is
not a signatory of the checks and had no participation in the
issuance thereof.

Issue:
 Whether or not the petitioner, who was not the issuer of the
three checks that bounced, could be held liable for violation of
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 as conspirator.

Ruling:

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a

conspiracy exist when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it. To be held liable guilty as co-principal by reason of
conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have perform an overt
act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.

It was not proven by direct evidence; petitioner was merely

present at the time of the issuance of the checks. However, this
inference cannot be stretched to mean concurrence with the
criminal design. Conspiracy must be established, not by
conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence.